Writes Matt Brennan, in "The real lesson of ‘Bros’: It’s OK to let gay art bomb" (L.A. Times).
I am of Eichner’s generation, or close to it; of his race, his gender, his sexuality, his industry, his city....
The freedom “Bros” extols, or tries to, is not just sexual freedom. It is the freedom to fight over, criticize, even ignore the artworks that claim to represent us — and, on the flip side, the freedom to keep making and consuming gay art whether straight people show up for it or not....
“Bros,” a film expressly about the refusal to butch up one’s voice for a straight audience, isn’t for everyone, and it doesn’t need to be. It can be for us, to argue about on Twitter or at the bar before “Drag Race,” outside the circuit party, during our own dates (or orgies). And it can be for us to decide it’s not worth our time or our money, that we would rather watch some other queer film or TV series out of love, instead of watching this one out of obligation. ...
May the next quarter century bring still bigger swings, still more revolutionary incursions into the mainstream, still more films and TV series “too gay, too niche” for straight audiences and not gay enough — never gay enough — for us. That’s progress.
Bombs away.
Posts
45 comments:
So it's okay not to pay attention?
When I think about this film, Blonde, and Don’t Worry Darling, it feels as though it’s more important to talk about the movie than it is to actually watch it.
And now the Woke are starting to look down at the empty void below their feet.
Rationalization. See, e.g., Jeff Goldblum’s line in “The Big Chill.”
First, we were required to see it. Then, we were homophobes for not seeing it. Now, no one watching it is a sign of mainstream acceptance.
I'm just waiting for "Ishtar" to finally get the love it deserves.
"I am of Eichner’s generation, or close to it; of his race, his gender, his sexuality, his industry, his city...."
Exactly. This was a niche film about a niche group of a niche group. And a niche group of people have shown up to watch it. I'd call it hitting the bullseye. They got what they set out to do- make a movie for their audience.
I agree with the author's premise. If it bombs, so be it. They can still enjoy it, or not. Ignore it, or not. But it's not a crime either way and anyone with the money and desire to do so can continue to churn out movies in this vein.
Someone read this to angry Billy E.
Eichner’s next come-back project: Bro's II, Maverick about a brilliant, but non-conformist pilot/instructor at an all-gay fighter weapons school.
Ice Queen: Cis-het fighters coming fast at 12 o'clock high!
Maverick: We're on their radar now, by God! Break left!
I consume "art" or pop-culture if I find it entertaining and well crafted. I don't care what the subject matter is, the race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, etc. of the characters. Is it well crafted and does it feel "natural". Is the character queer or straight or Catholic or Southeast Asian is less important than whether that identity feels natural to the character and story.
"When I think about this film, Blonde, and Don’t Worry Darling, it feels as though it’s more important to talk about the movie than it is to actually watch it."
I watched "Blonde," but somehow, I'm preferring to write about "Bros." I like talking about *not* doing something.
Gutfeld explains why "bros" bombs.
Richard said...
"So it's okay not to pay attention?"
Yes. "Gay" has been tedious and boring for some time now.
So when it gets absurd it's OK to point and laugh.
Like that guys ravings.
Ann Althouse said...
"When I think about this film, Blonde, and Don’t Worry Darling, it feels as though it’s more important to talk about the movie than it is to actually watch it."
I watched "Blonde," but somehow, I'm preferring to write about "Bros." I like talking about *not* doing something.
10/6/22, 7:54 AM
I haven’t seen any, though I may see Blonde. I’ve reads lots of articles about all three. And with each one I sense this narrative of people who are for the movie and people who are against it, and you have to pick a side and argue it out in the comments section. And the “debates” seem to be overshadowing the movies themselves.
Richard said...
"So it's okay not to pay attention?"
Yes. "Gay" has been tedious and boring for some time now.
So when it gets absurd it's OK to point and laugh.
Like that guys ravings.
“…I like talking about *not* doing something…”
Well, that certainly gives you maximum scope. Doing “something” is necessarily limited to that thing. Leaving multiple infinities of other things (not done) available to be talked about. Figure/ground: you can define the figure by studying the ground.
Gutfeld explains why "bros" bombs.
Whenever I see the word "Bros", all I can think of is the Stock Aitken and Waterman pop group from the '80s. And this song came to mind as the perfect message for the filmmakers: https://youtu.be/7yu0T9n5uos
“Bros,” a film expressly about the refusal to butch up one’s voice for a straight audience, isn’t for everyone, and it doesn’t need to be."
Uh, excuse me. The shareholders that funded this production would like a word.
"I like talking about *not* doing something."
Not quite the same thing, but check out Pierre Bayard on talking about books you haven't read.
I think this came up on this blog a while back. Sorry for any repetition.
Question: does talking about movies you haven't seen differ from talking about books you haven't read?
The "love trumps hate" crowd - sure are filled with a lot of HATE.
“Bros,” a film expressly about the refusal to butch up one’s voice for a straight audience, isn’t for everyone, and it doesn’t need to be.
That was one of the complaints in the Hollywood in Toto article. Billy's "flamboyant" and his character in the film doesn't like "masculine" gay men (the article writer's word). If you think some "they" hate you, it might be a comfort to recognize that they probably hate many other people, even some of those on their own side.
The film wouldn't have been a "bomb" if they hadn't built it up in the pre-opening publicity to be some smashing breakthrough. The idea may have been that movies that would have been for a predominantly African-American audience ten years ago are now mainstream, so why can't a gay film do the same. It's not going to happen, but if it could happen, this was the wrong story with the wrong actors at the wrong time.
May the next quarter century bring still bigger swings, still more revolutionary incursions into the mainstream, still more films and TV series “too gay, too niche” for straight audiences and not gay enough — never gay enough — for us. That’s progress.
Yeah, the problem will finding anyone to finance sure-fire flaming bombs. Less likely now than ever following this woke disaster. That’s not the studio business model.
- Krumhorn
So it’s “gay art” now?
Is that because the artist is gay? Or because the topic is gay?
Can an artist who happens to be gay make regular art? Or does it automatically become “gay art” when the artist is “out” (or maybe even when the artist is closeted but believed to be gay - or maybe even when the artist is long passed but the gay community wants to claim him so they “allege” or “surmise” he was gay, ugh).
Sleep with whoever you want to sleep with (consenting adults please) and leave the rest of us alone. We don’t care. But if you’re going to flaunt your sex/sexuality (whether gay or straight or otherwise) then we can criticize or mock or laugh and it’s NOT some kind of phobia or ism.
“Gay art” reminds me of the scene with Vince Vaughn in wedding crashers where the gay kid ties him to the bed and shows him the painting he made for Vaughn. Vaughn later describes it as the “nude gay art show”… funny as hell.
What’s the deal with gay guys and orgies? I guess I’m naive, but I always thought that was just a stereotype meant to make them look like sex obsessed deviants or something. But it’s pretty much true? They just go bang anything that moves at parties, and it’s pretty normalized for them (normalized enough to be calling then “our orgies” in publication, anyway).
Esteban said...
I consume "art" or pop-culture if I find it entertaining and well crafted. I don't care what the subject matter is, the race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, etc. of the characters. Is it well crafted and does it feel "natural"
Yes and I enjoyed "The Crying Game." The trouble is that those "art" movies have become rare. Mostly it's comic book stories.
"during our own dates (or orgies)"
Love is love, right?
This movie has the same effect as the Man Who Wasn't There from the old poemAntigonish by Mearns. It isn't really there, and many wish it would go away.
https://poets.org/poem/antigonish-i-met-man-who-wasnt-there
Natatomic -
Some portion (not sure what portion) of gay men are obsessed with sex, orgies, whatever deviant behavior is risky and might even end with transmission of a horrible disease. They cannot merely do this in private. No no. Certain homosexual men are obsessed with their demand that you be OK with their behavior - Accept it, and celebrate it. Not just being gay - but the in-your-face gay sex in public. You must be OK with that, too.
... or they will righteously yell and scream ... *LEVITICUS!*
Deviant sexual behavior - gay or straight - is just that. (Here comes the *I must be homophobic*).
I am not. My dear and much loved uncle died of AIDS in the 1980s - and my family stood by him.
If you've never witnessed what actually happens at gay-male-sex-in-public festivals in San Francisco - you're really missing out. It's real. Gay men having sex in public. I don't want to see anyone having sex in public. That is the new frontier. I'm not clear why gay men think this is cool?
We are all being groomed to be OK with the insanity. They want to force us to not only accept it, but force our children to watch. and these same gay male sex-lefties - HATE us.
I hadn't ever heard of the film until it apparently bombed. Well, that's not totally true. I went to see the re-release of Avatar in 3D last weekend (I was shocked at how well the CGI held up - of course, for all I know, James Cameron tweeked things in advance of the re-release so maybe it's not all old CGI) and saw there were theatres showing "Bros." I assumed it was a comedy about douchey frat boys. That didn't make sense to me because those types of films are out because of the type of humor inevitably involved (think Old School, Wedding Crashers, etc.) I later sawm Mr. Eichner's tweets and watched the trailers out of curiosity. It just didn't seem funny based on those trailers. The trailers, I assume, are the producers/filmmakers putting their best foot forward. If the trailer isn't funny, then WTF should I expect from the film? Probably not much. C'est la vie.
"and, on the flip side, the freedom to keep making and consuming gay art whether straight people show up for it or not...."
For reasons I've never understood, tolerance isn't enough. We must all celebrate homosexuality. Well, I think about what interests me, and other people's sexuality is not something I care about. Sorry.
Kinka Usher made "Mystery Men" a pretty good movie with a great cast. It didn't open well. Disappeared. He perfectly described the movie business "You work your ass off an entire year for two weekends." Failure abounds, bro. Move on.
I will note that asking among my circle of friends, none of them had heard of this movie until talking heads started talking about how it might have failed because of homophobia. Maybe the studio just didn't advertise the movie enough? If you build it they will come only works on ghosts in cornfields in Iowa. People aren't going to go see a movie that they haven't heard of.
Also whenever anyone associated with a TV Show or movie starts accusing the audience or potential audience of racism, sexism, homophobia or whatever I start with a presumption that piece is probably just not that great and they are trying to save face.
I just finished not going to see Bros again.
I'll probably not go again later this afternoon.
Movies have been for talking about rather than seeing for some time now. Meryl Streep plays Margaret Thatcher? Read a book. You'll get more out of it. Hollywood makes a film about Herman Mankiewicz? What do you get from seeing the picture that you don't get from reading the reviews? Another Marvel superhero movie? Do you even want to read about it, let alone see it? Another Sandra Bullock rom com? You can probably write the script yourself by now.
When Mad magazine was still a thing, you most likely did get more from seeing the movie than from just reading the parody. Is that really true today? Right now it seems like the only thing that changes is the color and gendersexual identity of the actors, but you can always have a debate about that and don't need to actually see the picture. Some films are still worth seeing, but how many of those are there?
Success is success and failure is success.
I presume that Billy made the movie for the Howards of this world, but as Gutfeld said, so few people went to see this film that nobody got monkey pox.
- Krumhorn
Transgender trends at the fringe.
Did the people who made this movie use their own money?
Or did they convince "investors" who have lost their frilly shirts?
Kinda sheds different light on whether the effort was "worth it".
Question: can Eichner answer why "Modern Family"'s portrayal of a gay couple was so hilarious, and helped make the show such a tremendous success?
When a movie ends with a man and a woman getting married, it is an affirmation of the continuity of human society. When a movie ends with a man and a man getting married, it is an affirmation of perverts butt-fucking. Maybe that has something to do with it.
Message movies suck.
All bad art is sincere.
Stop banging the drum.
And stop fucking whining when people criticize your Message Movie.
For reasons I've never understood, tolerance isn't enough. We must all celebrate homosexuality. Well, I think about what interests me, and other people's sexuality is not something I care about. Sorry.
The same with the trannies I got suspended for a week from Fakebook for using that term. All we want is for the lefties to leave us alone and they won't do that.
I think it would be great if leftist artists, Woman artists, gay artists, Jewish artists, whatever minority artists, would just create art for their particular group (if that's what they want) and leave it at that. And then let others, say White males, or say, Christians create art for White males or Christians. If that's what they want.
Then everyone gets what they want.
But of course, that's NOT what they want. They cry racism and sexism and try to stop white males from producing art for white males. And then cry racism or sexism or homopohobia when straights, or whites, or men do NOT love what they do.
Because those of us who want art to celebrate Beauty or Western Civilization or just plain entertain us are wrong. We can't get that art. We're supposed want art that pushes their particular groups agenda or the artists leftwing politics.
The same with the trannies I got suspended for a week from Fakebook for using that term. All we want is for the lefties to leave us alone and they won't do that.
I'm sorry to be the one to break the news on this, but as long as the lefties control the levers of power, what we want is immaterial since their first order of business is to get us to sit down and STFU. You must have missed that ukaze. Be better!
- Krumhorn
Would love to hear this twatwaffle tell his reading audience how "A Single Man", objectively a far better "gay art" film in every possible metric, was "butched up".
Nothing more tiresome than teh gheys saucing their phraseology to sound edgy. They're so full of shit, it's a miracle brown eyes aren't a genetic marker.
Post a Comment